Shanksville Deconstructed - Part One...

Technically, you're using the most common technique of 'debunkers' - "I can't actually answer the question being raised in the OP, so I'll
simply attack the argument or the poster's character... That will appear to give me some credibility..."

And on and on and on... very transparent.

Here's your chance Joey Canoli... how do YOU explain the grass circled in the photo above remaining intact after the impact of a Boeing? It's
clearly inside the crater created by the plane impacting the ground... what are your thoughts?

Originally posted by hooper
Where is this official story that claims that most of Flight 93 embedded in the soil?

As I outlined above, the 'Official Story' is a collection of what is put forward by the media, the government spokespersons and government groups
such as NIST, and supporters of the OS who post around internet forums like this.

This is exactly the same as the 'truth movement' being comprised of controlled demolition, lasers from space and no-planers, even though most people
in the truth movement find these ideas nonsensical and absurd.

If you want to appreciate the ether that is the 'official story', simply look around the various threads and listen to what all the people on 'your
side' of the argument are saying.

Originally posted by hooper
Also, those are descriptions by reporters or to reporters from first responders. What the ground feels like underfoot to someone without any
background in soils engineering, earthwork or geology and its actual compaction are two completely different things. Wet sand may feel very soft
under foot, but is very, very resistant to compression.

Believe me, I've done more research into the soil at Shanksville than anyone on ATS. You can read it here:

All I ask is that if you have comments to make on this, please do it via U2U, or please find the thread that was created specifically to discuss that
document - I really do want THIS thread to remain on topic in order to achieve its objective...

Rewey

So basically, your version of the "official story" is what ever you see fit to include. So why not just call it "rewey's story" and be honest
about it? I mean, by you reasoning, if I post that the impact crater is five miles wide and two miles deep then that becomes "the official story",
right?

I happen to note that when you quoted me you skipped the little part where I talked about soil compaction rates. Is this how you are compliling your
official version?

I would love to see your soil analysis, however, I do not download things from unknown websites. Just answer one question - how much time did you
spend at the site and in the surrounding area collecting data and developing proxies?

Originally posted by impressme
Just like the disinformationist web sites where some of the OS believers get their info so, they can go on pretending all this nonsense is true, just
goes to show how ignorant and gullible they really are.

Oh, good grief, dude, wake up. We don't need to be reading any gov't web sites to understand that claiming secret gov't conspirators made a fake
crash site in the middle of nowhere, and then turned around and covered up the fake crash site they made, is ridiculous. Such a stunt would be
idiotic, wasteful, offers no benefit whatsoever to the conspirators, and only adds unecessary layers of convolusion to an already convoluted
conspiracy plot. We know the conspirators already had two or more disposable aircraft under their control so they wouldn't need to fake anything.
Simply crash a real aircraft into the ground. BOOM, they're done. Wouldn't even take them ten seconds to do.

This bit absolutely had to have come from one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites putting out complete rubbish to deliberately get people all
paranoid. I have a hard time believing that an otherwise intelligent, rational person would ever accept something so ridiculous unless it had
originally been packaged in some sexy, convincing sounding rhetoric. If these web sites said the planes were deliberately crashed to eliminate the
witnesses aboard, I could understand that. If these web sites said they covered the crash site up to hide the fact it something other than a
passenger jet that crashed there, I could understand that. OTOH claiming that nothing crashed there *at all* is frankly a complete waste of my time
as well as yours to debate.

There's ignorance and gullibility here, all right, but it ain't with us.

Since you have the answers to the OP and we are all to “paranoid” to think for our selves why don’t you answer the OP questions to why
there is undisturbed grass where United 93 allegedly crashed.

When you can explain why on EARTH gov't conspirators would even want to waste their time making a fake crash site in the middle of nowhere, then
I'll ponder why the grass would be undisturbed.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
*HE* estimates the size and slope of the hole, and a little later, it will become the "official story".

If you disagree with what I've written, please feel free to add your own estimations or calculations. You're using a typical ad hominem attack -
play the ball, not the man. But I guess you just find it easier to criticise others than to contribute something useful, or a new perspective... well
done, genius...

You're missing the point, as usual with troofers.

You're attacking the "official story", using the size of the hole and comparing it to the dimensions of the plane.......

.....without providing any statements from the "official story" that actually address the size of the hole. Same MO as when troofers say the hole in
the Pentagon is too small..... ignoring the fact that the "official story" gives dimensions of the hole, evidence of where the wings hit, etc, that
perfectly match the plane.

You're a good little trooper/troofer. You're following the twoof playbook to the letter by constructing incorrect arguments from incorrect
statements of what the "official story" says, or in this case, fabricating a statement from nothing.

That's a strawman.

Sorry to call you out on it, but you're not gonna convince anyone new with strawman arguments. Only the already delusional will believe what you have
to say.

Originally posted by Rewey
how do YOU explain the grass circled in the photo above remaining intact after the impact of a Boeing? It's clearly inside the crater created by the
plane impacting the ground... what are your thoughts?

Rewey

My thoughts?

Your belief is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

What do I see?

I see: yellow grass=dry grass=dry soil.

And the roots holding together some dry soil from that particular plant. So, it could either have been blown into the air and come down in the same
area, or it could have simply slipped down the side of the nearly vertical side of the now loosened soil of the crater.

There's no way to know for sure is the only thing can be stated positively.

However, your personal incredulity and confirmation bias will never allow you to admit that you have NOT discovered anything of significance.

Originally posted by Rewey
how do YOU explain the grass circled in the photo above remaining intact after the impact of a Boeing? It's clearly inside the crater created by the
plane impacting the ground... what are your thoughts?

Rewey

My thoughts?

Your belief is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

What do I see?

I see: yellow grass=dry grass=dry soil.

And the roots holding together some dry soil from that particular plant. So, it could either have been blown into the air and come down in the same
area, or it could have simply slipped down the side of the nearly vertical side of the now loosened soil of the crater.

There's no way to know for sure is the only thing can be stated positively.

However, your personal incredulity and confirmation bias will never allow you to admit that you have NOT discovered anything of significance.

A clump of grass is your smoking gun evidence?

[edit on 8-10-2009 by Joey Canoli]

Also, this supposed deconstruction has still not established that the areas circled are even in the impact area.

Originally posted by hooper
Where the hell is this "official story" written so that we can all see it?

See, here's the rub... right here.

hooper is stating that there's no official government story with regards to all of the details of the alleged Flight UA93. I believe him. I can
barely find anything remotely 'official' about the whole incident.

Now ask yourselves this - why is there barely any official details to be found about the whole incident???

Why are some official government story believers ready to 'believe' whatever took place at Shanksville, when there's very little script for them to
follow??? I just don't understand their logic.

I should have known better to respond to your dribble. I knew you couldn’t answer the question because the OP just PUNCH another hole in your
fairytale so, instead you think you can just run everyone away with you ridiculous insults, scoffing at everyone who dose not believe in your
fairytales.

I see you have never researched false flag operation. You sir have demonstrated that you believe that your government “is not capable” of
committing a false flag operation in the United States. You sadly underestimate your government and the propaganda they spew from your media, you sir
are asleep.

Originally posted by hooper
So basically, your version of the "official story" is what ever you see fit to include. So why not just call it "rewey's story" and be honest
about it?

If you'd read the soil analysis, or other threads I've posted on, I clearly outline that the 'official story' to which I refer is made up of
multiple posts by 'official story' supporters, which I find inaccurate, and set about trying to demonstrate as such using data available.

I believe that's what truth is all about - if you can demonstrate something I've done wrong in my analysis, I'll happily change it. I've already
made huge amendments to the soil analysis based on a couple of things that OS supporters have pointed out to me. You see, I'm not trying to create
some controversial, conspiratorial document - just trying to present an accurate record...

Originally posted by hooper
I mean, by you reasoning, if I post that the impact crater is five miles wide and two miles deep then that becomes "the official story",
right?

Again, feel free to post that, but like I said to Joey Canoli - if you disagree with something I've posted in terms of figures or numbers, please
feel free to provide your own values, and I'll work with those. More than happy to oblige...

Originally posted by hooper
I happen to note that when you quoted me you skipped the little part where I talked about soil compaction rates. Is this how you are compliling your
official version?

I trim down every 'quote' I use to keep the threads short, and not to repost lengthy comments which just ends up dragging threads out over pages and
pages. No conspiracy there... again this is AMPLY covered in my soil analysis.

Originally posted by hooper
I would love to see your soil analysis, however, I do not download things from unknown websites.

It's just a pdf file from my 4shared account - nothing to worry about. If you're actually interested, I can email it to you.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You're missing the point, as usual with troofers.

I have to admit, this one always got me... Is it somehow supposed to appear MORE insulting if it's spelt wrong? Does it imply that I'M more stupid
because YOU can't spell?

Seriously - are we back in high school or something???

I can just picture all the OS supporters sitting there, high-fiving and slapping themselves on the back... "OMFG - you called him a 'truther', but
totally spelt it wrong! High five!"

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You're following the twoof playbook to the letter...

If I can borrow the argument from your counterpart hooper - can you show me where this 'twoof playbook' is written down??? Hmmm? Where is this
official, written-down 'twoof playbook' to which you refer? Can you email me a copy? You've clearly read it if you know it to the letter?

Canoli acts like a child, and posts like a troll dude. Best just to put the punk on ignore.

You're old thread on soil analysis was brilliant, and I think it brought up a significant amount of really good points which are often overlooked.
The fact that you took it upon yourself to go there and do your own work/tests/whatever is already above and beyond what most do here on ATS lol.

And the roots holding together some dry soil from that particular plant. So, it could either have been blown into the air and come down in the same
area, or it could have simply slipped down the side of the nearly vertical side of the now loosened soil of the crater.

See! There you go! It wasn't that hard to post an actualy opinion that addresses the OP! Thanks for contributing that - I do actually appreciate
it.

Now... I don't agree with you here that the sides of the impact crater clearly shown in the OP photo were anywhere NEAR vertical. I drew a red line
showing vertical, and green ones demonstrating where I thought the slope was. This is, of course, MY opinion, and you're more than welcome to have
your own.

But what are you using as a point of reference in the photo to make you believe that the sides of the crater are 'nearly vertical'? I was using the
trees in the background, and the way people are standing as my reference...

Originally posted by hooper
Also, this supposed deconstruction has still not established that the areas circled are even in the impact area.

Again - I believe it does. I feel that the photo shown, particularly in negative, allows the viewer to determine which objects are in front of others.
I believe it shows the two I pointed out both inside the crater, and immediately adjacent to the burnt debris/rubble.

But again, if you want to demonstrate how I'm wrong, I'll happily hand this thread over to the OS supporters, and move on to Part Two...

And of course, you give the perfect example by editing out the part where I ask you to provide any info provided by the "os" as to the dimensions of
the crater.

If it's not provided anywhere, then just state it and give a better analysis of the hole.

Let's see if you can do this, rather than giving estimates that give yourself zero traction to any logical, thinking person. perfect for trying to
convince other idiots, but it'll never work to get that new investigation.

Here's a good starting point - the only way to give GOOD evidence about the size of the crater is to provide an overhead shot with another object of
known dimensions in the same shot. And then do your comparison.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And of course, you give the perfect example by editing out the part where I ask you to provide any info provided by the "os" as to the dimensions of
the crater.

Joey, you're an official government story believer. What dimensions do you think the crater measure? Afterall, you believe that a jet crashed
there, so please show us your official government evidence that states the size of the crater.

But what are you using as a point of reference in the photo to make you believe that the sides of the crater are 'nearly vertical'?

The upper few inches of the crater in your closeup fit the bill. NOT the crater as a whole.

The grass might have been there, right on the edge, and slid down.

But it's also good to note that you've come to the realization that grass could have been flung upwards, and by chance, landed back in the same
area. Especially since the outer ~25' of each wing didn't contain any fuel, and so there wouldn't have been any fuel deflagration right where the
grass is. rather, the impact is from pure ke, like shooting a bullet into the ground.

But serious question - are you TRULY claiming that your smoking gun is a clump of grass?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.